RoR: Forum

Bill,

I competed in 4 amateur bodybuilding shows. The first one (1990) wasn't drug-tested but the last 3 were. I haven't read the wacky account of bodybuilding by Fussel, though I'm sure it wouldn't expand my horizon much. At this late stage, there isn't much about bodybuilding that I haven't already learned. I have taken several different kinds of things for the purpose of bodybuilding, creatine included.

Ed

Post 21

Saturday, February 5, 2011 - 10:31am

Ed,

The owner of a gym I used to go to was a body-builder and did take steroids. He was quite candid about it, but I don't know if he was a "professional" or an amateur.

Regarding creatine, I tried it myself and it did make quite a difference in my strength gains. But one day I was taking my blood pressure and discovered that it had gone up from around 100/60 to 150/95. At first I thought there was something wrong with the blood pressure machine, but each successive time I took my pressure, I got about the same numbers.

So I called Kaiser and talked to a nurse. When I told her I was taking creatine, she said that that was probably the cause, and to stop taking it for a few days, and that if my pressure stayed high to come in for a visit. But when I stopped the creatine, my pressure returned to normal. I tried taking smaller amounts but got the same result. So I no longer take it.

Post 22

Saturday, February 5, 2011 - 11:06am

Bill,

The most common result of taking creatine -- even more common than getting any performance benefit out of it -- is fluid retention. It's likely that you got fluid retention from creatine, and that that is what it was that was raising your blood pressure. For your information, a more extreme ratio of dietary potassium to sodium, say 10-12:1, would likely offset some or all of this negative effect of creatine on you.

Caveat:
If you quickly switch up eating patterns to get a 10-12:1 ratio of potassium to sodium, rather than to slowly approach it, you can get hypotension and possibly cardiac arrest.

Ed

Post 23

Saturday, February 5, 2011 - 12:47pm

The Whey Protein powder I use has creatine, I don't think much though, it doesn't say how much they put in there, and if it doesn't say how much, then I'm sure to save money they barely put much in there. I've tried it in the past but I have no idea if creatine works for me or not since it's hard to isolate that as a variable to measure it.

Post 24

Saturday, February 5, 2011 - 3:00pm

John,

Creatine, if loaded amply, will cause a 2-4lb water weight gain in the first 5 days of use. If you don't get that weight gain, something is wrong.

Ed

Post 25

Saturday, February 5, 2011 - 3:37pm

Do you think it's worth giving a try? Like I said I bet the protein powder I use barely has any, it's actually that cheap brand you can find at Wal-Mart, which actually I've found to be quite tasty and economical.

Post 26

Saturday, February 5, 2011 - 4:17pm

John,

After you've been using creatine, take your blood pressure. I'd be curious to see if it goes up at all.

Post 27

Saturday, February 5, 2011 - 9:22pm

Creatine can normalize b.p. in folks who faint when they stand up (orthostatic hypotension):

Water drinking reduces the occurrence of syncope in healthy volunteers but the effects of hyperhydration are unknown. This study assessed the effects of combined creatine (Cr) and glycerol (Gly) induced hyperhydration on the cardiovascular and haematological responses to postural change. ...

Following 2 baseline trials, 19 subjects were matched for body mass and assigned to ingest either 20 g Cr and 2 g Gly kg(-1) body mass (BM) plus 2 l of water or 2 l of water alone (Pl) each day for 6 days and once more 5 h prior to the experimental trial. Subjects ingested 500 ml of water prior to all trials to ensure euhydration. ...

Cr/Gly supplementation resulted in a significant increase in systolic (11 mmHg) and diastolic (7 mmHg) blood pressure during head-up tilt with no change following Pl supplementation.

--The effects of a novel "fluid loading" strategy on cardiovascular and haematological responses to orthostatic stress

Recap:
In times when you need it, creatine can help increase your b.p.

Ed

Post 28

Saturday, February 5, 2011 - 9:33pm

John,

I think creatine is worth giving a try. I invite you to consider a 5-day loading phase of 5 grams creatine taken 4-6 times a day and, after that, a maintenance dosing schedule of 5 grams creatine taken twice a day. Alternatively, you could skip the load and go straight to the maintenance dosing schedule, with the end result that you just wait a little bit (a few weeks) longer for strength results to show up in the gym.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/05, 9:34pm)

Post 29

Saturday, February 5, 2011 - 10:35pm

I'm assuming each time I take a creatine dose I should take it along with some carbs? Will it still be effective if the source of carbs come from fruit?

Post 30

Sunday, February 6, 2011 - 10:20am

If you puree them -- and end up with 45-90 grams of net carbs (or 30-60 grams carbs + 15-30 grams protein) -- it should be effective.

Post 31

Monday, February 7, 2011 - 9:47am

Ok I'm doing a loading phase this week, I noted on my fitness blog thread. I had a stash from last year I never went through, it's from GNC called Amplified Creatine 189, and it's listed as "Creatine Hydrochloride", claims 2.5 grams equals 5 grams of creatine monohydrate. Never heard of it before.

Post 32

Monday, February 7, 2011 - 10:13am

John,

Amplified Creatine 189, and it's listed as "Creatine Hydrochloride", claims 2.5 grams equals 5 grams of creatine monohydrate.

That's marketing deceitfulness. A gram of Creatine Hydrochloride has more creatine than a gram of creatine monohydrate, but that's irrelevant. Appropriate serving sizes are measured in grams of "free" creatine, not in grams of "creatine-bonded-to-something".

You could say the same thing about the poorly-absorbed form of calcium: calcium carbonate. A gram of calcium carbonate has more calcium in it than a gram of calcium citrate, but that's irrelevant. Appropriate serving sizes are measured in grams of "free" calcium, not in grams of "calcium-bonded-to-something".

Creatine Hydrochloride does not enjoy the reputation of having several dozen successful trials which creatine monohydrate does. Folks who try to sell it to you use diversion -- onto irrelevant, inconsequential facts -- in order to sell the less valuable Hydrochloride product at the higher, monohydrate prices.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/07, 10:14am)

Post 33

Monday, February 7, 2011 - 10:57am

lol, ah, so toss out the bottle then?

Post 34

Monday, February 7, 2011 - 2:41pm

John,

I'd still use it, but just wouldn't buy it again.

Ed

Post 35

Monday, February 7, 2011 - 5:32pm

lol, too late I already tossed it in the trash. I bought the real stuff in powdered form today and will start the cycle tomorrow. By the way I've heard people recommend cycling on and off of creatine. Does the science support this? I'm considering doing this even just to track the success of the product on my workouts.

Post 36

Monday, February 7, 2011 - 11:21pm

Ed,

You wrote,

You could say the same thing about the poorly-absorbed form of calcium: calcium carbonate. A gram of calcium carbonate has more calcium in it than a gram of calcium citrate, but that's irrelevant. Appropriate serving sizes are measured in grams of "free" calcium, not in grams of "calcium-bonded-to-something".

I don't follow you. How is it irrelevant that a gram of calcium carbonate has more calcium than a gram of calcium citrate? I see that 500 mg of calcium carbonate has 200 mg of elemental calcium, whereas 500 mg of calcium citrate has only about 100 mg of elemental calcium. So wouldn't you need to take only about half as much calcium carbonate as calcium citrate to get the same amount of calcium (ignoring absorption efficiency, which is greater for calcium citrate)? By "free" calcium do you mean elemental calcium?

Post 37

Tuesday, February 8, 2011 - 7:49am

Bill,

I don't follow you. How is it irrelevant that a gram of calcium carbonate has more calcium than a gram of calcium citrate? I see that 500 mg of calcium carbonate has 200 mg of elemental calcium, whereas 500 mg of calcium citrate has only about 100 mg of elemental calcium.

Right. Now take that information and go buy some calcium pills (or powder) out in the real world with it.

What you will find is that the calcium product will be labelled as to how much "calcium" is in each serving. From your standpoint (ignoring absorption efficiencies), you will not know the difference between any kind of calcium. You will be getting a certain milligram amount of calcium per serving and you will be paying a certain price.

If, however, a vendor is trying to sell you the cheaper version of calcium (at a high price), they may bring up the irrelevant fact that calcium carbonate has "more" calcium.

But it's not more for your money, when you go to the checkout counter -- because what you paid for was a certain amount of calcium per serving and a certain number of servings in a bottle. You use the knowledge of cost, servings, and amount of calcium per serving in order to make your decision to purchase or not.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/08, 8:05am)

Post 38

Tuesday, February 8, 2011 - 8:53am

If, however, a vendor is trying to sell you the cheaper version of calcium (at a high price), they may bring up the irrelevant fact that calcium carbonate has "more" calcium.

I've never seen a vendor make that claim, and it wouldn't make much sense, since the actual (elemental) calcium that a supplement contains is listed on the bottle, which is what people are considering when buying it. I've purchased many different forms of calcium over the years (although I don't take it any more), and I've never encountered the kind of hype that you're suggesting.

Post 39

Tuesday, February 8, 2011 - 9:11am